Wednesday, July 26, 2006

New Urbanism

Article responding to new urbanism critiques

This article focused on refuting some of the critiques of new urbanism.
one of the first thing it brings up is what new urbanism isn't:
"New urbanism projects, particularly those involving intensive office and retail uses, regularly meet either conventional (single-use) or shared parking ratios (parking spaces per one thousand square feet of leasable space) defined by the real estate industry."
This brings up one critique of New Urbanism that wasn't;t addressed: driving. The structure of new urbanism with abundant parking makes it easy to drive. While a new-urbanism development would enable somebody to both walk and drive, there is little disincentive to driving. So, when the weather turns sour, those many short walking trips could easily turn in to many short driving trips. And if in the car, why not go a little further to the big box to keep cheaper things? Building an environment that brings pedestrian to the same level as cars is a good start. However, the goal should be to give pedestrians a higher priority.
The car parking data is of great concern. If people are to have the ability to walk, why is so much space devoted to cars? IF less space is devoted to cars, density could be increased, while still providing more individual space.

Another unaddressed NU shortcoming is described in a defense: "NU's greatest contribution comes not at a macro-policy level but at the level of site planning, neighborhood design, and development."
The problem is that an isolated 'enclave' does not fully provide for its residents. If it were isolated and built on a micro scale with 1000 miles of ocean separating it, then it would be self-sufficient. However, most areas in the US are built on suburban sites. One dense walkable area 15 miles away from a job center, may produce more car miles traveled than a sprawling burb 2 miles from the job center. The location does need to be considered as part of the development question. However, the author is correct in the grand importance of the micro view

The economic critiques of urban developments (and new urbanism) is also one of the main reasons we need more of it. New urbanist housing is generally more expensive than sprawl housing. Basic economics teaches that when demand exceeds supply, price will be higher. Urban developments are expense because many people desire them, yet there is not sufficient development. Furthermore, restrictions are built up to discourage walkable communities. Parking requirements, traffic manuals, setbacks, and many other legal requirements are codified in favor of sprawl growth. The fight to overcome these impediments causes more sprawl growth that is not wanted. New Urbanism, though it has many flaws could be a good step to overcome the barriers and begin to level the playing field. New urbanism actually gives more options and more freedom. A far cry from the suburban sprawl model that has included more homeowners associations and additional layers of restrictions.

No comments:

Post a Comment